Hrychu wrote: criticizing PA's criteria is not a crime. I didn't say it was. I am aware that the review is old and it got grandfathered in, but still a shіtty review is a shіtty review.

Edited by Lewian - October 08 2024 at 10:57

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3111423

Cristi wrote: Hrychu wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3111423 wtf?!

It was done like that because the album was missing the info. Obviously not the right way, but it says on the album page

3 stars Songs / Tracks Listing 01 Suite, part I 11:42 02 Suite, part II 06:42 03 Suite, part III 05:22 04 Suite, part IV (Vahan Artsruni & Anna Mailian) 08:20 05 Suite, part V 03:57 06 Suite, part VI 06:31 07 Ethnophonica 04:14

as it says on the album page https://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=33893, please add.
Songs / Tracks Listing


(please add)

Line-up / Musicians


Vahan Artrsruni
(please add)
Releases information

Producer-Naregatsi Art Institute in 2002

Most registered users cannot add directly to the pages of course. I will remove the non-review and would add that to the album details but maybe E&O will see this and want to do it properly.

Hrychu wrote: This is weird. There is a big plain visible FORUM button on the top. I think the forum is even easier to access than the review writing section. And the thing is, if you can post a review, that means your account is also eligible to post on the forums. xD I mean, it only takes a few minutes to read the rules right next to the review input field. 🤣

richardh wrote: I would like this to be removed please for what should be obvious reasons (the poor use of 'language' at least). I understand this guy wanted to rant but that's not a good reason for a review is it? https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3116345

I actually enjoyed reading this rant-review hybrid. It is harsh but entertaining, mainly thanks to its very apparent, almost caricatural British-isms.

A crap is crap is a crap, and crap by any other name would smell as crappy.

While I do find it amusing, it's basically just a very long, steaming log saying "It's crap" multiple times. And you must be stoned to like it.

It's as vacuous as a hoover's rectum (much like ELP some might say). ;) I will save it here for posteriority-sake.

[email protected] wrote: As I type, I have this album playing right now. I bought it recently in a reputable record shop that also sells second hand used records. It wasn't too expensive. I've not heard it played before but I've always enjoyed TARKUS, since I was a young teenager in the early 1970's so I bought this and I've played it a couple of times now. What can I say? Well I suppose that the first thing that I can say is that as soon as I'm finished typing this review I'll be taking this record off the turntable for the last time. I can also say that when this was recorded in 1971 in Newcastle City Hall, I'm glad that I was elsewhere because Newcastle City Hall was obviously having a bad day at the office when ELP rocked up to perform this sewer material. This is greatest load of sh*te that ever was allowed to stray across the threshold of the City Hall in Newcastle (or any other performance venue, for that matter). Pure self indulgent unlistenable rubbish. I'll be moving this record on very soon, hoping that some stoner somewhere might find some kind of satisfaction or solace in its withering excuse for a musical performance. In fact you'd have to be half baked (or better still fully baked) to even begin to approach any kind of appreciation for this drivel but seeing as I've never been into that sh*t (see what i did there!), I've absolutely no desire to start now at my age. If it was at all possible to give no stars for this album, that would still be too much. So I'm constrained to allocate one star for as it states below, "Poor. Only for completionists". And I must say, I do have lots of sympathy for said "completionists".

Hrychu wrote: richardh wrote: I would like this to be removed please for what should be obvious reasons (the poor use of 'language' at least). I understand this guy wanted to rant but that's not a good reason for a review is it? https://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=3116345 I actually enjoyed reading this rant-review hybrid. It is harsh but entertaining, mainly thanks to its very apparent, almost caricatural British-isms.

Easy to find with google cache still or by checking in with us at the forum if he did not save it and really misses it. Although I expect that he would not be surprised to see it taken down and probably did not spend very long lovingly crafting that review to get just the right balance of righteously condescending indignation and outrageous hyperbole.

By the way, about my "And you must be stoned to like it" comment in case it was not clear to all, that was referencing the "...hoping that some stoner somewhere might find some kind of satisfaction or solace in its withering excuse for a musical performance. In fact you'd have to be half baked (or better still fully baked) to even begin to approach any kind of appreciation for this drivel but seeing as I've never been into that sh*t..." commentary.

I quite enjoyed it, quite funny in its way, and I have not been stoned since some kid I went to school with threw a rock at me (well, I guess I have been "beautiful" in the Hendrix sense many times since). Yes, I am experienced.

Edited by Logan - Yesterday at 00:53